Christianity’s Criminal History, 86

Saint John the Evangelist, a painting by the Italian Baroque painter Domenichino. The problem with the splendid Christian art is that the painters have Nordicized the Semites of the 1st century. Had photography existed in the 1st century of our era, the Aryans would never have projected their beautiful physiques on the ugly rabble of Palestine.

______ 卐 ______

 

Neither the Gospel of Matthew, nor the Gospel of John, nor John’s Book of Revelation come from the apostles to whom the Church attributes them

Due to the great importance of the ‘apostolic tradition’, the Catholic Church published all the Gospels as books of the apostles or their disciples, which justified their prestige. But there is no proof that Mark and Luke, whose names appear in the New Testament, are disciples of the apostles; that Mark is identical to the companion of Peter, or that Luke was Paul’s companion. The four Gospels were transmitted anonymously.

The first ecclesiastical testimony in favour of ‘Mark’, the oldest of the evangelists, comes from Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, in the middle of the 2nd century. But today there are many researchers who criticise the testimony of Papias; call him ‘historically worthless’ (Marxsen), and even admit that Mark ‘has never heard and accompanied the Lord’.

The apostle Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, is not the author of the Gospel of Saint Matthew which appeared between the 70s and 90s, as is generally assumed. We ignore how he got the reputation of being an evangelist. It is evident that the first testimony comes from the historian of the Church, Eusebius, who in turn accepted the claim of Bishop Papias: about whom he writes that ‘intellectually, he should have been quite limited’. The title ‘Gospel of Matthew’ comes from a later period: we find it for the first time with Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Both died at the beginning of the 3rd century. If the apostle Matthew, contemporary of Jesus and witness of his works, had written the Gospel that is attributed to him, would he have had to borrow so heavily from Mark? Was he so forgetful? Did he have so little inspiration?

All critical biblical research considers that there is no reason why the name of the apostle Matthew should appear on the Gospel, since it was not written in Hebrew, as the tradition of the ancient Church affirms, but in Greek. No one is known to have seen the Aramaic original, nor is anyone known to have translated it into Greek; nor in the manuscripts or citations is the slightest remnant of an original Aramaic text preserved. Wolfgang Speyer rightly includes the Gospel of Matthew among ‘fakes under the mask of religious revelations’. K. Stendhal ventures that it is not even the work of a single person but of a ‘school’. According to an almost unanimous opinion of all the non-Catholic researchers of the Bible, that gospel is not based on eyewitnesses.

The most recent Catholic theologians often painfully turn on these facts. ‘In case our Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew had been preceded by an original version in Aramaic…’ writes K. H. Sohelkle. Of course, ‘in case’, says Hebbel with irony, is the most Germanic of the expressions’.

‘An original Aramaic Matthew must have been written several decades before the Greek Matthew’. Not even they themselves believe this. Lichtenberg was not the first to know but was the first to say it accurately: ‘It is clear that the Christian religion is supported more by those people who earn their bread with it than by those who are convinced of its truth’.

It is interesting that the first three Gospels were not published as apostolic, the same as the Acts of the Apostles, whose author we also ignore. The only thing we know is that he who wrote these Acts of the Apostles simply puts on the lips of his ‘heroes’ the most appropriate phrases: something common in old historiography. But these inventions not only constitute a third part of the Acts of the Apostles but are also their most important theological content and, what is particularly remarkable, the writing of this author represents more than a quarter of the entire New Testament. It is generally supposed that the author of the Gospel of Luke is identical to the travelling companion and ‘beloved physician’ of the apostle Paul. But neither the Gospel of Luke nor the Acts of the Apostles are very Pauline. Researchers do not believe today that either of these two works was written by a disciple of Paul.

The Acts of the Apostles and the three Gospels were not signed with the true name or even with pseudonyms: they were anonymous works like many other proto-Christian works, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews of the New Testament. No author of the canonical Gospels cites his name, not once does he mention a guarantor, as the later Christian treatises so often do. It was the Church the first to attribute all these anonymous writings to certain apostles and their disciples. However, such attributions are ‘hoaxes’, they are a ‘literary deception’ (Heinrici). Arnold Meyer notes that ‘with certainty only the letters of the apostle Paul are authentic, who was not an immediate disciple of Jesus’. But it is well known that not all those epistles that appear under his name come from Paul.

 
John

Since the end of the 2nd century, from Irenaeus, although at first not without controversy, the Church attributes without reason the fourth Gospel to the apostle John: something that all critical researchers have questioned for more than two hundred years. There are many weighty reasons for raising questions.

Although the author of this fourth Gospel, who curiously does not mention any author, affirms having leaned on the chest of Jesus and being a reliable witness, he assures and repeats emphatically that his ‘testimony is true’, that ‘he has seen’ and that he ‘knows’ he is telling the truth so that we ‘may believe’. But this Gospel did not appear until about the year 100, while the Apostle John had been killed long ago, towards the year 44 or, probably, in 62.

The Father of the Church, Irenaeus, who was the first to affirm the authorship of the apostle John, has intentionally confused him with a priest, John of Ephesus. And the author of the second and third epistles of John, which are also attributed to the apostle John, calls himself at the beginning, ‘the presbyter’ (a similar confusion also occurred between the apostle Philip and the ‘deacon’ Philip). Even Pope Damasus I, in his canonical index (382), does not attribute two of John’s epistles to the apostle John, but to ‘another John, the presbyter’. Also, even the Father of the Church Jerome denied that these second and third epistles belonged to the apostle. The arguments against the authorship of the apostle John as ‘the Evangelist’ are so numerous and convincing that even Catholic theologians are starting to manifest, little by little, their doubts.

The same could be said about the Book of Revelation of John, whose author is repeatedly called John both at the beginning and at the end of the book, who also appears as a servant of God and brother of Christians, but not as an apostle. The book was written, according to the doctrine of the ancient Church, by the son of Zebedee, the apostle John, since an ‘apostolic’ tradition was needed to guarantee the canonical prestige of the book. But it did not last long given that the Book of Revelation, which appeared in the last place of the New Testament, was rejected by the end of the 2nd century by the critics of the Bible who otherwise did not deny any dogma.

Pope Dionysius of Alexandria (died 264-265), a disciple of Origen and nicknamed ‘the Great’, categorically denied that John was the author of the Apocalypse. Pope Dionysius points out that primitive Christians have already ‘denied and completely rejected’ the ‘Revelation of John’.

They challenged each and every one of the chapters and declared that the work lacked meaning and uniqueness and that the title was false. They affirmed, in particular, that it did not come from John and that they were not revelations since they were surrounded by a multitude of incomprehensible things. The author of this work was not one of the apostles, no saint and no member of the Church, but Cerinthus, who wanted to give a credible name for his forgery and also for the sect of his own name.

The theologian and Protestant bishop Eduard Lohse comments: ‘Dionysius of Alexandria has very accurately observed that the Revelation of John and the Fourth Gospel are so far apart in form and content that they cannot be attributed to the same author’. The question remains whether the author of the Book of Revelation wanted to suggest, by his name John, to be considered a disciple and apostle of Jesus. He does not say that explicitly: it was done by the Church to confer apostolic authority and canonical prestige on his text. And so falsifications started: the falsifications of the Church.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

Kriminalgeschichte, 61

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

 
Ambrose’s struggle against Hellenism

Like many other Church fathers, Ambrose was subject to the influence of Greco-Roman philosophy, especially Plotinus. However, he speaks of it quite critically, relating it to ‘idolatry’, a special invention of Satan, and also to the ‘heretics’, especially the Arians. If this philosophy has something good it is that it comes from the ‘Holy Scriptures’, from Ezra, David, Moses, Abraham and others. It also considers all the natural sciences as an attack on the ‘Deus maiestatis’. The Hellenism is for him, as a whole, an ‘arma diaboli’, and the fight against it ‘a fight against the Empire of the devil’ (Wytzes).

The young Gratian at first had given a good treatment to the Hellenists, but he learned from his spiritual mentor ‘to feel the Christian Empire as an obligation to repress the old religion of the state’ (Caspar). This was no longer difficult, since Christianity was established and paganism was in retreat. After the visit to Rome by Gratian and his co-regent in 376, the city, still largely clinging to the old faith, experienced the destruction of a sanctuary of Mithras by the prefect Gracchus, who, pending baptism, thus demonstrated his merits.

In the summer of 382, Ambrose was in Rome, probably horrified by the many Gentiles, the ‘demented dogs’, as were called by Pope Damasus I, a Spaniard, and while he was talking about persecution, the Christian members of the Senate had to pay their official oath before the image of the goddess Victoria.

At the end of that same year, the sovereign (who would soon be assassinated) disposed, ‘evidently by the advice of Ambrose’ (Thrade), ‘with all certainty not without the influence of his paternal adviser Ambrose’ (Niederhuber), a series of peremptory anti-Hellenist edicts for the city, by virtue of which the support of the State was withdrawn from various cults and clergy, like the popular Vestals, the exemption from taxes was annulled and the ownership of the land of the temples was denied.

The monarch also ordered the removal of the statue of the goddess Victoria, a masterpiece of Tarentum taken from the enemy and also a highly venerated symbol of Roman rule. Since Victoria was one of the oldest national deities, with a cult statue in the Senate hall since the time of Augustus (only Constantius II had recently withdrawn her), most of the senators and Hellenist citizens of Rome felt offended about what was most sacred.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support The West’s Darkest Hour.

Kriminalgeschichte, 53

Below, an abridged translation from the first volume of Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (Criminal History of Christianity). For a comprehensive text that explains the absolute need to destroy Judeo-Christianity, see here. In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal.

 

The scene of the bishops Lucifer of Cagliari and Liberius of Rome

A tragicomic curiosity of sacred history was the bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, a fanatical anti-Arian of scarce formation who, for the dogma of Nicaea, suffered a long exile almost alone in Syria and Palestine. Since a clergyman should pay no homage to a ‘heretic’ emperor, he drafted a host of writings against him, in which, among numerous biblical quotations, he interposed all kinds of primitive expletives, calling him the antichrist in person and worthy of the fire of hell.

Nevertheless, Lucifer also antagonised Liberius of Rome and with Hilary of Poitiers he did not recognise the opportunistic measures of Athanasius in the ‘synod of peace’ (362). Rather he turned his back on the Catholics, frightened by their wealth, relaxation and accommodation, and from Sardinia he organised his own circle, which lasted until the 5th century: a small but very active council, branched from Trier to Africa, Egypt and Palestine. Lucifer had supporters even among the Roman clergy.

After his death (370- 371) the head of the Gregory movement, bishop of Elvira, was in his origins also a radical defender of orthodoxy. The Luciferians, ‘those who profess the true faith’, rejected the Catholics as schismatics, censured their belonging to the State and the avidity of their prelates for honours, wealth and power, the ‘luxurious basilicas’, the ‘overflowing basilicas of gold, covered with sumptuous and expensive marbles, with ostentatious columns’, ‘the extensive real estate of the rulers’. The strict Catholic Theodosius I recognised them as Orthodox. They even had a bishop in Rome, Ephesus, who tried in vain to deliver justice to Pope Damasus. The prefect of the city, Bassus, categorically refused ‘to persecute Catholic men of irreproachable character’.[1]

But the lords themselves handled the problem. In Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, Catholic priests smashed with axes the altar of the Luciferian bishop Heraclides. In Trier, the priest Bonosus was persecuted. In Rome, the police and the papal clerics mistreated the Luciferian Macarius in such a way that he died as a result of the wounds in Ostia, where he had been exiled. (However, the local bishop, Florentinus, did not want to have anything to do with the ‘Damasus crime’ and moved his mortal remains to a pantheon.)

In Spain, the Catholics forced the doors of the church of the presbyter Vicenç, dragged the altar to a temple under an idol, beat the acolytes of the ecclesiastic, tied him with chains and left him to die of hunger. Bishop Epictetus de Civitavecchia carried out a much shorter process. He tied the Luciferian Rufinus to his carriage and tormented him to death. However, Bishop Lucifer of Cagliari was venerated as a saint in Sardinia, which for the time being was closed to the central Church, and as such he was recognised in 1803 by Pope Pius VII.[2]

The fact that the history of the popes is not in short supply of curiosities is also demonstrated by Bishop Liberius.

In vain did the emissary of the emperor, the praepositus sacri cubiculi, Eusebius, a eunuch of ill repute who was executed under Julian, persuade Liberius to condemn Athanasius. Donations and threats were useless, so Constantius had the Roman kidnapped at night and brought him to Milan. There he explained the damage that Athanasius had done to everyone, but especially to him. ‘He has not been satisfied with the death of my elder brother and has not ceased to instigate the already deceased Constant to enmity against us’. The sovereign added that even his successes against the usurpers Magnentius and Silvanus did not mean so much to him ‘as the disappearance of this impious man from the ecclesiastical scene’. Apparently Constantius placed a high price on the capture of the fugitive Alexandrian and sought the help of the kings of Ethiopia.[3]

However, the Roman bishop wanted to oppose to the maximum the ‘heretic’ emperor, even ‘dying for God’. Therefore, Constantius interrupted the conversation: ‘What part of the inhabited earth are you, that you alone stand beside an ungodly man and disturb the peace of the whole world?’ ‘You are the one who, by yourself, cling to the friendship with that person without conscience’. Liberius received a period of three days to reflect, but remained unperturbed. ‘For me, the laws of the Church are above everything’, he said. Send me wherever you want. ‘And this despite the fact that, according to Ammianus, he was convinced of Athanasius’ guilt.

But after two years of exile in Veria, with the brainwashing applied to him by the local Bishop Demophilus and Fortunatus, bishop of Aquileia, Liberius capitulated. The Roman so admired in Milan, the ‘victorious fighter for the truth’ (Theodoret), had to expel from the Church, in a very special spectacle, the ‘father of orthodoxy’: the doctor of the church Athanasius, and signed a semi-Arian creed (the so-called third formula, according to which the ‘Son’ is only similar to the ‘Father’), bringing to light his free will. In reality, what Liberius did was buy his return. All he wanted was to get out of this deep affliction and return to Rome. Even the father of the Church Jerome explained in his time that Liberius, broken in exile, had given a ‘heretical’ signature.[4]

Constantius authorised in 358 the return of Liberius under the condition that he should administer the bishopric of Rome jointly with his successor Felix.
 
_______________

Note of the translator: The footnotes still lack the general bibliography, which will be ready as I finish the abridgement of this first volume.

[1] Socr. 2,36 f. Soz. 4,9. Athan. hist. Arian. ad mon. 31 f. Lucif. Calar. Den non parcendo in Deum delinquentibus. Cf. De non conviendo cum haereticis.- De regibus apostaticis. – De San Athanasio. – Moriendum esse pro Dei filio. Cf. also to complete the history of cults written in 384 by clerics Faustinus and Marcellinus, the so-called Libelus precum in Collectio Avellana. Cf. esp. also Coll. Avell. ep. 2,85. Pierer X 567 f. LThK 1st ed. IV 673, VI 677 f. Bertholet 331. Altaner 320. Kraft, Kirchenväter Lexikon 354. Krüger, Lucifer 39 f. Rauschen 140. Stein, Vom römischen 234 f. Caspar, Papsttum I 201 f, 216 s. V. Campenhausen, Ambrosius 6. Lietzmann, Geschichte IV 40 f. Hemegger 403 f. Haendier, Von Tertullian 96 f. Klein, Constantius II 56 f, 121 s. Joannou 119, 139 f.

[2] Libellus precum 21; 23 f. Pierer X 567 f. Rauschen 199 f, Caspar, Papsttum I 202 f, 216. Hemegger 403 f.

[3] Soz. e. h. 4,11,3. Ammian. Rerum gestarum 15,7; 22,3. Athan. hist. Arian. 38 f. apol. ad Const. 29. Socr. e. h. 2,16. Theodor. e.h. 2,13; 2,16. Wojtowytsch 122 f. Klein, Constantius II 137 f.

[4] Theodor e. h. 2,16 f. Liberius, ep. 10 (Hilar. 4,168); ep. 12 (Hilar. 4,172); ep. 18 (Hilar. 4,155). Hilarii Coll. antiar. (frg. hist.) «Pro deifico», “Quia scio”, “Non doceo”. Soz. e. h. 4,15. Theodor. e. h. 2,16 f. Philostorg. 4,3. Sulp. Sev. Chron. 2,39. Hieron. de vir. ill. 97. Ammian. 15,7 f. Athan. hist. Arian. 38 f. LThK 1st ed. VI 549 f, IX 597 f. Altaner 307 f. Grisar, Geschichte Roms 281. Caspar, Papsttum 1171 f, 183 f. Hermann, Ein Streitgespräch 77 f. Wojtowytsch 121 f. Klein, Constantius II 86, 140 f. Aland, Von Jesus bis Justinian 181. Haendier, Von Tertullian 94 f. Jacob, Aufstände 152.